❓ Question regarding awareness of public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal supporting the Tjurabalan consent determination. The Deputy Premier confirms awareness and uses the opportunity to attack the opposition's stance on native title.
AnsweredQoN 308Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
TJURABALAN CONSENT DETERMINATION 308. Mr BOWLER to the Deputy Premier: Is the Deputy Premier aware of public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal in support of the Tjurabalan consent determination on 20 August? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I am aware of the public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal. Deputy President Fred Chaney issued a statement saying that the agreement reinforced the tribunal’s view that negotiation is an effective and desirable alternative to court action. He went on to say that he commends the Western Australian Government for acknowledging the rights and interests of the Tjurabalan people and for supporting the continuation of negotiation as opposed to litigation. Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
TJURABALAN CONSENT DETERMINATION
Is the Deputy Premier aware of public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal in support of the Tjurabalan consent determination on 20 August? Mr RIPPER replied: I am aware of the public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal. Deputy President Fred Chaney issued a statement saying that the agreement reinforced the tribunal’s view that negotiation is an effective and desirable alternative to court action. He went on to say that he commends the Western Australian Government for acknowledging the rights and interests of the Tjurabalan people and for supporting the continuation of negotiation as opposed to litigation. Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr RIPPER replied: I am aware of the public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal. Deputy President Fred Chaney issued a statement saying that the agreement reinforced the tribunal’s view that negotiation is an effective and desirable alternative to court action. He went on to say that he commends the Western Australian Government for acknowledging the rights and interests of the Tjurabalan people and for supporting the continuation of negotiation as opposed to litigation. Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
I am aware of the public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal. Deputy President Fred Chaney issued a statement saying that the agreement reinforced the tribunal’s view that negotiation is an effective and desirable alternative to court action. He went on to say that he commends the Western Australian Government for acknowledging the rights and interests of the Tjurabalan people and for supporting the continuation of negotiation as opposed to litigation. Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
TJURABALAN CONSENT DETERMINATION
Is the Deputy Premier aware of public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal in support of the Tjurabalan consent determination on 20 August? Mr RIPPER replied: I am aware of the public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal. Deputy President Fred Chaney issued a statement saying that the agreement reinforced the tribunal’s view that negotiation is an effective and desirable alternative to court action. He went on to say that he commends the Western Australian Government for acknowledging the rights and interests of the Tjurabalan people and for supporting the continuation of negotiation as opposed to litigation. Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr RIPPER replied: I am aware of the public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal. Deputy President Fred Chaney issued a statement saying that the agreement reinforced the tribunal’s view that negotiation is an effective and desirable alternative to court action. He went on to say that he commends the Western Australian Government for acknowledging the rights and interests of the Tjurabalan people and for supporting the continuation of negotiation as opposed to litigation. Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
I am aware of the public statements by the National Native Title Tribunal. Deputy President Fred Chaney issued a statement saying that the agreement reinforced the tribunal’s view that negotiation is an effective and desirable alternative to court action. He went on to say that he commends the Western Australian Government for acknowledging the rights and interests of the Tjurabalan people and for supporting the continuation of negotiation as opposed to litigation. Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr Birney interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr RIPPER: I will come to the member for Kalgoorlie in a minute. However, I will go on with what Mr Chaney said. He said that the agreement was another positive step towards the resolution of the State’s many and varied native title issues. As well, there were comments from the commonwealth Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. He issued a statement in which he said that the successful resolution of this matter was further proof that negotiated agreements are the way ahead for native title. I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
I question the comments from the State Opposition. Again today we heard the member for Kalgoorlie attack the protection of the native title rights of indigenous people. Have we heard from the sensitive new-age Leader of the Opposition? Has he issued a statement acknowledging the recognition of the Tjurabalan titleholders’ native title rights? The Leader of the Opposition does not need to rise to his feet. He can answer by interjection. Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr Barnett: You asked me the question. I am happy to take questions, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is disorderly to speak when I am on my feet. I call him to order for the first time. It is also disorderly for the Leader of the Opposition to stand during question time when he is not raising a point of order. Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr RIPPER: No statement has been made by the Leader of the Opposition; there has been stony silence. In particular, there has been stony silence in the face of the outrageous and disgraceful comments from the member for Kalgoorlie. However, he is not the only one. I refer to Senator Ross Lightfoot’s comments about this native title determination. He described the decision as horrendous. He said that it would restrict resources development and deplete Australia’s wealth, and that the agreement equated to giving 950 people 27 000 quarter-acre blocks each. I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
I will give the Leader of the Opposition one more chance. I hope he does not adopt the silly stunt of rising to his feet. He has the opportunity to repudiate the comments of the member for Kalgoorlie and of Senator Ross Lightfoot. Is he or is he not a sensitive new-age leader? Does he or does he not support the protection of the rights of indigenous people? Is he prepared to show leadership and put down the member for Kalgoorlie, and refuse to condone the comments of Senator Ross Lightfoot; or is he incapable of displaying that leadership? The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can repudiate those comments or condone them. What will he do? Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr Barnett: As the Government now likes to ask the Leader of the Opposition questions, I am happy to answer them. I totally support the member for Kalgoorlie in standing up for the rights of the mining industry in this State, which is under threat. I respect and acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and I suggest that the Deputy Premier immediately get the Leader of the House to suspend standing orders and we will debate native title right now. Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Mr RIPPER: Offered the opportunity to condemn Ross Lightfoot and the member for Kalgoorlie, the Leader of the Opposition has refused. The problem is that he is not a leader; he is a hostage.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.